I wrote this article for Helium. It’s a little rambling, but I haven’t written Helium articles for a while. But writing this helped me to arrive at some clarity on this issue. It’s part of a debate, “Did the Ten Commandments Exist Before Moses?” I argue for the “No” side.
———-
According to the Hebrew Bible, there were certainly moral standards before the time of Moses. In Genesis 4, God punishes Cain for killing Abel. In Genesis 6:11, God disapproves of the human race on account of its violence. In Genesis 12 and 20, non-Israelite nations have some notion that adultery is wrong, and God punishes rulers when they are about to sleep unwittingly with the wife of Abraham. Indeed, there was some moral law prior to Moses, and it overlapped in many areas with the Ten Commandments that God later gave to Israel at Sinai, or Horeb.
But did the “Ten Commandments” exist before the time of Moses? The Ten Commandments were a part of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel, such that there are places in which the Torah equates the Ten Commandments with the covenant (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13). The Ten Commandments were the terms of God’s covenant with Israel: God would bless and preserve Israel, if she obeyed God’s voice; otherwise, God would punish Israel. Many of these commandments overlapped with the moral standards that existed before the time of Moses; the Sabbath command, however, may have originated after the Exodus. But the Ten Commandments AS Ten Commandments—a list of precepts that God gave to Israel as ten stipulations, to serve as the terms of God’s covenant with her—came to exist in the time of Moses. Consequently, in the part of the Bible that narrates the time before Moses, we see no reference to the “Ten Commandments.”
The command to keep the Sabbath is a part of the Ten Commandments, in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Did this command exist before the time of Moses? The Sabbath appears to have existed prior to Moses, for it came to be at creation, as God rested on the seventh day and sanctified it (Genesis 2:3). But, as far as I can see, there is no evidence in Scripture that the observance of the Sabbath was a COMMAND for human beings before the time of Moses; rather, we see that God rested on the seventh day, not that God told human beings to do so. God may have been saving his command to observe the Sabbath for his chosen people, Israel. Nehemiah 9:14 affirms that God made known his Sabbath to Israel through Moses, and Exodus 31:13-17 calls the Sabbath a sign between God and Israel that God sanctifies his special nation. The Sabbath, like the broader body of the Ten Commandments, is intricately connected to God’s covenant with Israel, which was established with conditons under Moses. (The covenant existed as far back as Abraham, as Genesis 15 indicates, but the conditions of the covenant occurred when Moses was Israel’s leader.)
Christian Sabbatarians (who believe that God commands all people to observe the Sabbath on Saturday) have argued that Mark 2:27 says that the Sabbath was made for man, meaning that God at creation commanded all human beings to observe it. “Notice that the Sabbath was made for MAN, not only for the JEW,” Sabbatarians have said. But Mark 2:27 occurs in the context of a controversy that Jesus had with the Pharisees over the observance of the Torah, God’s law for Israel. In such controversies, Jesus and the Pharisees often used a word for man, even though the law in question applied only to Israel. In John 7:22, for example, Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that they circumcise a man on the Sabbath day, although neither he nor the Jewish leaders believed that God required all human beings to be circumcised. Genesis 17, after all, prescribed circumcision for Abraham’s descendants. (But didn’t Judaizing Christians in Acts 15 and Galatians want Gentiles to be circumcused? Yes, as an entrance requirement for joining the community of Abraham. In Judaism, Gentiles had to be circumcised to become a part of the people of Israel. Paul’s argument was that physical circumcision was no longer a requirement for Gentiles to join God’s special people.) In Jesus’ controversies with the Jewish leaders over Torah observance, “man” means the people under the Torah, namely, Israelites.
Christian Sabbatarians also argue that Isaiah 56 and 66 present Gentiles observing the Sabbath. Isaiah 56 discusses Gentiles who join themselves to God’s covenant, which may indicate that they are converts. Gentiles keep the Sabbath after they join God’s covenant people, Israel, indicating that the Sabbath is God’s institution for Israel, not all of humanity. Isaiah 66 describes all flesh worshipping God on the Sabbaths and new moons in the new heavens and the new earth. The passage does not say that Gentiles will be required to rest, which is a key aspect of Sabbath observance; at the same time, God may very well place Gentiles under the discipline of the Torah in the new heavens and the new earth, as an educational tool. Zechariah 14 describes them keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, after all. But that does not mean that Gentiles before then are required to observe the Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was God’s creation observance for all of humanity. The Sabbath commandment (not the Sabbath itself, but the command to observe it) appears to have originated within the context of God’s relationship with the nation of Israel, under Moses.
There were moral standards before, during, and after the time of Moses, but there were also differences between God’s requirements for humanity before the Torah came into being, and after God placed Israel under it. In an article for the “Yes” side, Robert Briggs argues in qal va-homer fashion:
“Now, if the offerings seen under the Mosiac law were in operation before they were written, read and observed; would the most vital of all instructions to man (The Ten Commandments) be in literary limbo at the same time?”
Indeed, there is overlap between God’s pre-Torah and Torah standards, but there are differences as well. Leviticus 18:18 prohibits a man from marrying two women who are sisters, and yet did not Jacob do precisely that when he married Leah and Rachel? Leviticus 18:9 says that a man can’t sleep with his sister, either his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter. But Abraham was married to Sarah, the daughter of his father (Genesis 20:12). Although there is a strong strand within Judaism that tries to argue that the patriarchs observed the Torah, we see indications that they did not. God may not have held them to the same strict standard that he later imposed on Israel. Briggs seems to assume that God had the same standards before and after the time of Moses, and so he concludes that the Ten Commandments pre-dated Moses. But this is not a safe assumption. Prior to Moses, God very well may have had thoughts as to how things should be (i.e., a man shouldn’t marry his half-sister), but God did not enforce that standard until the Mosaic law.
Romans 5:12-21 is interesting and relevant to this debate, for Paul discusses sin before and after the law. Paul says that God’s revelation of the law under Moses multiplied trespass, for God reckons sin to people when they know his law and choose not to obey it. At the same time, death did exist from Adam to Moses, as a result of Adam’s sin. In a sense, God did have a moral standard and punish sin before the time of Moses, and yet, according to Paul, God’s revelation of the Torah under Moses brought something that did not exist before: a clear revelation of God’s righteous standard. In my opinion, that’s how God could let the sexual sins of Abraham and Jacob slide: they lacked God’s full revelation, and so they didn’t know better.
Did the Ten Commandments exist prior to Moses? God had standards for people back then. Many of them overlapped with the Ten Commandments. And yet, there’s no evidence that the Sabbath command pre-dated God’s relationship with Israel under Moses. The Ten Commandments as such were the terms of God’s covenant with Israel. At the same time, they were a fuller revelation of God’s standards, which were not fully and completely expressed prior to Moses.
James' Ramblings 
Yes, I agree with what you have written here brother.it’s time this issue was clarified. You doubtless know the argument that the ten commandment law or Decalogue is THE eternal standard of judgment. In my opinion, there is a serious flaw in this argument. It is the assumption that the ten commandment law is the arbiter of God’s judgment and that the letter of the law, like the Ten Commandments, is the definitive definition of sin.
Of course sins described in the ten commandment law existed before Sinai—that is not in question—but to insist that they were judged by the ten commandment law is ludicrous. It’s like saying Adam and Eve walked around Eden with tablets of stone tucked under each arm. The concept that people have always been judged by the Decalogue has no basis in scriptural. Even the children of Israel, who lived under the Law, were not judged solely by the Ten Commandments—they were judged by the Law as a single unit, which, by definition, included the Royal Laws of Love—these are not even mentioned in the Decalogue! One would think, listening to folk promoting the old covenant Ten Commandments, that these were the only laws in existence at that time. Well, they weren’t—there were at least dozens, if not hundreds, of laws of a ‘moral’ nature.
What you and so many other Christians are doing, is judging sin solely by an ancient written code and some even insist sin will be judged by that code. Neither is true. Sin has always been directly judged by the general word of God. He does not need written code, like the one He set forth at Sinai. To interpret sin in purely legalistic terms shows an extremely short-sighted understanding of what sin really is and what the role of law is.
Sin has its roots in the heart and influences the intellect and will and finds expression through the body (Prov.4:3; Matt.15:19-20; Luke.6:45; Heb.3:12). The sin nature is the basis for sinful habits (Rom.7:7).
In James 1:14-15 we read: “but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, IT GIVES BIRTH to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
So we see that sin is not simply “the transgression of the law” (1Jn 3:4), the favourite definition of the legalist; it has its birth in evil desire. Evil desires give birth to “lawlessness” (the correct definition of 1Jn 3:4 by the way).
The consequence of practicing sin is spiritual death, separation from God in this life (Eph.2:5) and in the hereafter.
Sin is much broader in principle and scope than can be defined by a basic legal code, as was the Decalogue, which focuses on external actions alone. In His Sermon on the Mount, Christ showed that the Mosaic Law was a basic elementary law which elicited a form of godliness but without providing the power thereof. He showed that sin is so much more than an action—it is an attitude of the heart. Hence (to paraphrase): “You have heard it said by Moses (Christ’s word in the context of the lesser light of old covenant) that you shall not murder, but I SAY unto you (Christ’s word now in the context of the greater light of the new covenant) even if you have hatred in your heart you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:18ff). The solution, Christ declared, was that which He exemplified in His very own life and death, love—self sacrificing love (John 13:34). The opposite of love is self-saving love or selfishness. Sin is not definable not just in terms of a forbidden act described in a legal code like the Ten Commandments, but in terms of a forbidden motive like self-saving love—the antithesis of self-sacrificing love. This love is the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2) for born again Christians and for all redeemed beings. The immoral act of murder is the symptom; the motive of hate is the cause. This was the point Jesus stressed.
Christians who promote the ten commandment law are like the Pharisees of old who simply could not comprehend Jesus’ interpretation of sin in these terms. They were blind leaders of the blind and so saw His teachings as as a diabolical threat to the Law of Moses. Consequently, they sought to kill Him.
Righteousness is about divine moral ethics enshrined in eternal spiritual principles of love. The Mosaic Law was but a dim reflection of these principles (hence lesser glory 2Cor 3:7-11). The New Testament is full of these eternal spiritual principles —set in the context of godly admonitions and imperatives.
We can see that sin is something more than a violation of the Decalogue. In the New Testament John says, “All unrighteousness is sin” (1Jn 5:17). Sin can be defined as self-seeking that leads to selfish rebellion against God and His nature. It can be defined as a violation of His sovereign will for our lives. Sin is not just immoral behavior, defined in legal terms that focus narrowly on specific outward behavior (acts) which it rightly prohibits, but immoral motives, defined in terms of attitudes that are contrary to the principles of divine love.
Adam, we presume, was perfect in spirit when he was created. This would account for why he was able to walk with God in Eden. The work of salvation is to give us back the nature lost by Adam through his fall. This becomes a partial reality in the new birth; but once we have are restored with a new nature in Heaven there will be no more death because there will be no more sin. And since there will be no more sin in our nature, there will certainly be no need for a written law prohibiting immoral behavior that cannot arise a second time. We will, in fact, be one with God in spirit and love. Yet, despite this, there are those who promote the childish idea that the Ten Commandments will line the walls in Heaven—the King James Version of course! This shows that they are not only naïve but they are ignorant of the role of law. Law is only for an unrighteous man; not for a righteous man (1Timothy 1:8-9. There will be no law prohibiting immoral acts in Heaven because only sinless beings can dwell in the presence of God. No, it is high time for folk to stop preaching that God judges sin exclusively by the ancient Jewish laws given to Moses and to start preaching that God judges sin by the standards of His love. His love is based on His character and He does not need a law outside of Himself to know how to judge the wicked. If you have His love reigning in your heart, you no longer need law because divine love automatically results in a righteousness which is the very opposite of the immoral behavior restrained by a legal code like the Ten Commandments. This is why Christians are not under law but under grace. In any case righteousness never came by the law of commandments in the Old Testament and nor does it come by the law of commandments in the New Testament. Righteousness comes by grace alone through faith alone. The Decalogue simply exposed sin and that’s all that it did. It had no vitalising power; it had no more power to help the sinner to overcome the sin it prohibited than a modern bus time-table has to help you get to your destination at the times it propoeses, or a ‘no smoking sign’ has to help a smoker to kick the vicious habit of smoking.
Christians are not under law to Moses they are under law to Christ. “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal 6:2)
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Brian. A lot of things there to think about!
LikeLike
Sorry James, where I said “you and other Christians”, I should have written other Christians. You are obviously not included in this refutation! 🙂
LikeLike
No problem! 🙂
LikeLike
Serious flaw. If in this case Christians should not build any church buildings. There is no command to observe Sunday. If God kept it right after creation and the only day set aside and made holy….the only God who is the creator….no one to command in Genesis..it was only Adam and Eve who naturally worship along with God. I just don’t get it why human beings created another day to observe….Every 7th day reminds of Gods completed creation makes more sense and the only day that is called Sabbath ….not any day…am no theologian….Sabbath School VS Sundayschool…there is something wrong here…
LikeLike